My father gave up red meat and soda around 2002. My dad’s clone, my uncle didn’t give up anything. Yes they are clones, I sequenced them myself. Since then my dad has always been at least 20lbs heavier than my uncle despite having almost identical activity levels since they had similar jobs and shared hobbies for most of the time. Now 23 years later my dad has heart congestive heart failure and a torn meniscus in his knee while my uncle has a perfect heart but has needed both knees replaced. I think the biggest difference is definitely the sugar because my uncle tends to drink diet soda and my dad fruit juice, tea and coffee.
Also, RoundUp is so safe you can drink it!
https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=26
The cognitive dissonance…
No shit. Nice someone did the study so they could get there.
I’ve had my team of “experts in the obvious” work on this for one and a half minutes and they came to the same conclusion. This is a human greed business issue, not a science one.
Cool, can you show how big the effect is, based on your team’s efforts? And what the distribution of values is, based on sponsor?
Is it dosage related or is any amount of red meat bad? And by red meat is it beef in particular or does it also include lambs and camels?
From a health perspective you can simplify it to mammals = red meat. Birds, fish, reptiles, insects etc = not red meat.
And yeah it’s dosage based. Generally speaking you want to stay under 350g (by cooked weight) red meat a week. More than 500g a week is when it starts to be consistently linked with higher health risks. If you want to be really technical it could be said 0g is better than 350g, but in this range the increased risk tends to be near insignificant.
A minority of us, but a growing minority, look at the data and come to the conclusion that the meat isn’t the problem. It’s the sugar and carbohydrates people eat with the meat that are the problem.
If you cut out all of the fructose, glucose, and carbohydrates from your diet. Your health outcomes are going to be amazing regardless of your meat consumption
If you cut out all of the fructose, glucose, and carbohydrates from your diet.
Problem is, these foodstuffs are cheap and easy to preserve and distribute. So a lot of what you’re suggesting boils down to “if you buy more fresh produce” which ultimately means “if you spend more money on groceries that spoil faster”.
Even that doesn’t address the relative health hazards of chronic high consumption of red meat when compared to white meat. But, again, we’re talking about an enormously subsidized beef industry even compared to fish and chicken (where it seems we’re intent on raising prices through ecological destruction/abysmal hygiene). The game still boils down to having this avalanche of surplus ground beef that’s practically being given away next to healthier options that are far more expensive.
What data are you referring to?
If you want a bunch of paper references I recommend
https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/science every statement has a number, and those numbers directly linked to the scientific articles to back the statementIf you prefer to listen to a medical lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDJsxw0uMLM
Or if you’d rather read a detailed medical textbook https://shop.elsevier.com/books/ketogenic/noakes/978-0-12-821617-0
The nut of it is, most of the modern non-communicable diseases are based in sugar and carbohydrate consumption. The world has about a billion people with type 2 diabetes documented, and that is strictly because of excess carbohydrate consumption.
Of course there’s more nuance, inflammation plays a significant factor, and combining fat and carbohydrates at the same time create cellular inflammation due to the Randall cycle (not a cycle) cross inhibition.
There’s excellent work going on about the impact of constantly elevated insulin levels, and how that causes most of the manifestations of metabolic disease. And insulin levels are directly driven by carbohydrate consumption, persistently snacking all day means all day elevated insulin.
Most people would be better off eating a whole food diet, no processed foods, nothing from a factory. That eliminates most of the easy sugars, most of the carbohydrates. If somebody wants to eliminate even more, they could try out a low carb, or even a ketogenic diet or even a zero carb diet.
lmao. no time for this. enuf grifting…
If somebody wants to eliminate even more, they could try out a low carb, or even a ketogenic diet or even a zero carb diet.
Most recent studies of long term ketosis show accelerated aging markers, and some potentially harmful increases in LDL and VLDL cholesterol. Some propose periodic resets out of ketosis to avoid some of the accumulated long term issues, while taking advantage of some of the short term benefits for overall insulin sensitivity and obesity.
The human body has many, many ways to meet its nutritional needs. We’re omnivores and we have lots of anthropological history of different cultures surviving primarily on carbs, primarily on animal products, and all sorts of in between.
There are plenty of issues with people on carnivore diets, too, so I would caution against trying to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. I’ve never seen anything suggesting that there’s a statistically significant delta between a high carb whole foods diet and a low carb whole foods diet. And even within those frameworks, it’s entirely possible that the qualitative differences between one whole food still makes a difference compared to another whole food, like the observed studies regarding red meat being bad, fatty fish being good, legumes being good, fermented vegetables being good, etc.
Nutrition science is pretty incomplete. We’re only recently learning bits and pieces about the role of the microbiome, and haven’t even finished accumulating the information we started learning in recent decades about endocrine feedback loops in nutrition and metabolism. It’ll take a lot of data and analysis to have confidence in what people are saying, and I personally take it all in with interest but skepticism.
Most recent studies of long term ketosis show accelerated aging markers
That is interesting, what study was that? What were the markers they used?
some potentially harmful increases in LDL and VLDL cholesterol
Potentially is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The only group following keto which see a increase in LDL is the lean-mass-hyper-responder phenotype. There is some interesting research being released on this group Paper - Plaque Begets Plaque, ApoB Does Not: Longitudinal Data From the KETO-CTA Trial - 2025. However, Cholesterol is not a disease - its essential for life - the concern has never been cholesterol but atherosclerosis - if someone has elevated LDL, undamanged and unglycated (as on keto) and they are concerned they should get a CAC score so they can see their actual plaque burden.
There are plenty of issues with people on carnivore diets
I’d like to learn what those problems are, I’m currently following a carnivore diet and as far as my reading has gone there are not any downsides.
This study shows inflammatory markers are increased on a ketogenic diet: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6922028/
This rat study shows increased senescence in heart and kidneys in long term ketosis: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado1463
However, Cholesterol is not a disease - its essential for life - the concern has never been cholesterol but atherosclerosis - if someone has elevated LDL, undamanged and unglycated (as on keto) and they are concerned they should get a CAC score so they can see their actual plaque burden.
What you’re asking for is being studied. Here’s a meta study from 2013:
However, one established risk factor of CVD, i.e. LDL-cholesterol, still turned out to be harmfully affected by the VLC regimen, most probably attributable to the larger amounts of saturated fat in the diet(Reference Bueno, de Melo and de Oliveira1). In their discussion, the authors stated that future meta-analyses should investigate the impact of low carbohydrates (LC) v. LF on other important pathological markers, e.g. endothelial function, in order to further assess the safety of LC dietary therapies.
This is reasonable, since evidence from prospective cohort studies has shown that endothelial dysfunction represents an independent risk factor for the development of many CVD including atherosclerosis(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2). We, therefore, carried out a meta-analysis to compare the effects of LC and LF regimens on flow-mediated dilatation (FMD). FMD of the brachial artery is a non-invasive measure of endothelial function, furthermore reflecting the local bioavailability of endothelium-derived vasodilators, especially NO. Inflammation of the endothelium is regarded to play a major role in the destabilisation of atherosclerotic lesions, therefore paving the way for future CVD events(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2).
Their results:
In our meta-analysis, LC dietary protocols were associated with a significant decrease in FMD when compared with their LF counterparts. A recent meta-analysis of observational studies including a sample size of 5·547 subjects has observed that a 1 % decrease in FMD is associated with a 13 % increase in the risk of future cardiovascular events(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2)
Along the same lines, here’s another study with arterial measurements that shows reduced blood flow and arterial function for those who stuck with a high protein diet: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000331970005101003
Look, none of these studies are, standing alone, enough to really change things. But it seems to me, from the outside that you’re cherry picking your own results to justify carnivore diet.
The high carb versus low carb discussion is complicated and has a lot of factors at play. But the evidence for animal versus plant based low carb suggests that animal product diets are more harmful than plant product diets of similar macronutrient profiles.
Moreover, the overall trends show that those who eat a lot of whole grains (which are, by their nature, high carb plant based foods) have lower mortality than those who don’t. The same is true of those who eat a lot of fruit (again, high carb plant based food).
Trying to tease out which of a million variables is truly responsible for cardiovascular health isn’t easy, but a lot of the overall trends can be seen:
- Whole grains good
- Whole fruit good
- Red meat bad
- Cured meat really bad
- Seafood good
- Legumes good
Now, you can quibble with confounding variables, but at a certain point trying to argue that minutiae starts looking like religious apologetics, really cherry picking examples in favor while ignoring examples against. Coming up with a coherent theory of “fiber not important” or “the foods our genetic ancestors ate are somehow bad for us now” is an uphill battle, and I’m not convinced that the carnivore diet is anything more than a scam designed to sell books.
Side note, I had a couple of high blood pressure readings recently, and was considering using one of the injectable drugs for weight loss. But after talking to a doctor, I thought I’d try watching the food that goes into my “pie hole” first.
That was a few weeks ago when I saw my doctor. Since then, I’ve been eating much fewer processed foods, and more fruits and veggies. I was surprised at the difference of caloric intake and carbs from snack foods compared with regular fruit as a snack. “Tortilla chips: serving size 5 chips!” And eating the processed snack always leaves me wanting more. I also added some moderate walking exercise.
So after 4 weeks I’m down 8.5 pounds, about 3+% of my body weight. I already feel a big difference. Now I’m thinking I don’t need to inject expensive chemicals into my belly. Maybe I can just eat healthier foods and walk a few miles per week.
The injections work by causing your brain to want to do the things that you’re describing. Adherence to a plan is the hard part, and the drugs tend to make people naturally want to stick with that plan, by literally making it more desirable than not sticking with it.
I highly recommend getting a home blood pressure cuff, and recording your blood pressure readings in the spreadsheet. It’ll be great for you to see trends over time. And your doctor will like it too if you can bring the spreadsheet into next visit.
I had very high blood pressure, I did keto for 6 months and completely resolved it. And I have the spreadsheet documenting the entire journey. It’s gratifying to look backwards at
Thanks. Much appreciated.
no shit? hmmm
Does “bad for your health” mean “if we hadn’t been doing this, life expectancy would be about 200 years”?
There’s three metrics to think about:
- Actual number of years reduced/increased
- Actual probability of that change in lifespan
- Statistical certainty that the trend we observe is actually linked to the variable we’re studying.
Russian roulette (traditional 1 round in 6 chambers) in a hospice ward (where everyone has been given a prognosis of less than 6 months to live) would be a very high certainty of shaving months off the life of 1/6 of the studied population. In the grand scheme of things, that’s not a very high risk. But at the same time, we can look at it and say “yes, shooting oneself with a revolver is very bad for health.” Putting a more or less deadly round in the chamber is probably not going to be a hugely significant change in outcomes, even if we can objectively say that one is better or worse for the person’s health than the other.
Almost all dietary/nutrition studies involve much smaller swings in lifespan or health conditions, probabilistically over a smaller portion of the population, with less statistical certainty in the observations. But the science is still worth doing, and analyzing, because that all adds up.
Bad news if you’re a tiger, I guess.
The issue with many of these studies is that they compare people who eat red meat to those who either avoid it specifically or don’t eat meat at all. The problem is, red meat isn’t the only variable at play. Vegans and vegetarians, in particular, are likely to have much healthier lifestyles overall than someone who eats red meat - which is more or less synonymous with the “average person.”
What I’d really like to know is the difference between red meat eaters with healthy lifestyles, compared to both the average person and those who don’t eat meat at all.
Did you read how any of the referenced studies were structured to confirm this assumption?
Would you be able to give examples of healthier behaviors that vegans and vegetarians perform that the general population does not?
If one made their choice to abstain from meat for ethical reasons and not health reasons I’m not sure their lifestyle would be drastically different from their counterparts, then again I’m not sure what particular behavior patterns you are referring to which could throw off studies.
I abstain from meat for ethical reasons, a similar ethical reason encourages me to use public transit and bike instead of driving, to reduce my impact on life and the environment. This is anecdotal but most vegans/vegetarians I’ve known are concerned with their impact in general, it’s rare that they only obstain from eating meat but do everything else as an average US meat-eated would.
On average, there are far more people among vegetarians and vegans who generally pay more attention to what they eat and don’t eat, exercise more, and likely smoke and drink alcohol less as well. Obviously, there are exceptions - but I’m talking about averages here.
since vegan fare is pretty limited, i think the first thing is that vegans don’t eat nearly as much fast food. they probably eat out less overall. which is going to require a lifestyle that carves out time at home to cook or meal prep.
Maybe the restaurants you go to have fewer options, but vegans go to restaurants that have things they can eat, and practically every restaurant has options now. French fries, for example, are a fast food item that’s usually vegan.
so you think vegans eat as much fast food as non vegans
You do realize you’re not obligated to respond to comments, right? If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re allowed, encouraged even, to not respond.
am i wrong?
Yes. A number of vegans excel at endurance sports and they do that be eating and drinking boatloads of calories.
what did say that contradicted this
Most of the studies include processed meat like salami, which has known carcinogens and conflates the result to all red meat.
This particular linked study, that is the basis for this thread, limited itself to only unprocessed red meat.
Every study conflates high sugar consumption with meat consumption. If a pizza is considered a serving of meat, in all fairness it should also be considered a serving of plant based foods. Carbohydrates make up the bulk of pizza. And those come exclusively from plants
We know sugar is bad for health. These observational studies are useless unless they can control for sugar and carbohydrate intake as a factor.
unless they can control for sugar and carbohydrate intake as a factor.
But they can, lol
Except that salami is typically made of pork, which isn’t a red meat. Most cured meats and sausages are pork based.
Nutritionally speaking pork is a red meat. All mammal meat is red meat, non mammal meat is not.
Just checked and you are right. I’m so used to hearing “Pork, the other white meat” that I mis-understood.
Yeah it was very clever marketing on their part. Don’t blame you.
Next you’ll tell me that cat’s aren’t white meat either…
Not to mention most of the antimeat studies are observational food surveys with weak hazard ratio outcomes.
Most annoyingly the classification of “meat” is infuriating and biased. In some of the studies any sandwich, any pizza, any sugar covered possible meat containing item counts as meat. It’s well established that sugar is very detrimental for health.
The only people avoiding sugar at large care about their health, so there is tremendous healthy user bias, and the advice for the last 50 years or so has been to avoid meat if you want to be healthy… Reinforcing the healthy user bias.
A high quality disciplined study to show the effect of meat on health would include metabolic markers like ketones, track sugar independently, and not use a once every 4 year food questionnaire.
The key to knowing if the study is serious, or sensational, is if they use relative risk or absolute risk in their findings. Nobody publishes absolute risk with respect to meat consumption…
That may be a problem, but it wouldn’t explain the differences in results due to sponsorships.
Well, it would - in the sense that an unbiased study might still find that a meat-eater (i.e. the average person) is less healthy than someone who doesn’t eat meat, and then falsely conclude that meat is the reason, rather than accounting for all the other lifestyle differences. Meanwhile, a study funded by Big Meat would obviously find that meat is good for you - which, let’s not forget, could also be true.
The left/blue side of the graph are outcomes that show meat decreased all cause mortality, the right/red side of the graph are outcomes that show meat increases all cause mortality. If you were a hungry researcher, you could publish unending papers indicating either way from this same observational data pool! - Hence the constant news cycle driven by dietary agendas - not based on hard science RCTs.
The problem with open-ended observational studies, is you can’t prove causation, and you can find tons of associations for or against whatever you like.
Grilling the data: application of specification curve analysis to red meat and all-cause mortality
when investigators analyze data from observational studies, there are often hundreds of equally justifiable ways of analyzing the data, each of which may produce results that vary in direction, magnitude, and statistical significance
Evidence shows that investigators’ prior beliefs and expectations influence their results [5]. In the presence of strong opinions, investigators’ beliefs and expectations may shape the literature to the detriment of empirical evidence
Then somebody will come along and do a metanalysis of the studies that were just basically association farming. And claim to find some universal truth… at a certain point we have to look at these observational studies as not science, hell it’s not even academics, it’s advertising, propaganda, and agenda pushing. These are hypothesis generating, they should be the beginning of science, they are not the conclusion of science. And they should never be used for policies, or even marketed to lay people.
There is no such thing as an impartial sponsor; some are more obviously biased than others, but the belief in a fictitious impartiality is part of the problem. It shouldn’t take a meta-study for people to see am obvious conflict of interest.
I’m biased. You are biased. Everyone is biased.
Hi, please, don’t. These baseless “corrections” that are really just semantics aren’t helping anyone, and just contribute to anti-intellectualism.
We know what an impartial sponsor is in the context of this study - it’s a sponsor that doesn’t have a profit motive.
Obviously humans are biased. Scientists know that. Scientists train on that concept from day one. Observational studies are hard to control for bias, but that doesn’t mean the field of science is silly for trying anyway.
The placebo-controlled double-blind study is the gold standard of scientific experiment for a reason.
An impartial sponsor is not a sponsor that is inhuman and has no preconceptions. We all know that’s impossible.
An impartial sponsor is one that does not have clear signs of partiality - like a literal profit motive. That’s all.
Edit - and for the record, in science, everything requires study. If you want to claim that conflicts of interest are impacting scientific results, you study it.
That’s what it means to be impartial. To not trust assumptions based on your preconceptions. Assume as little as possible, consider as many possible explanations as you can, and verify everything.
What if the sponsor is the blanket university funding for a professor’s research? It may have some bias, but there is no steak in the actual result.
I expect to see “these results call for more research on the topic”, but that’s pretty much it.
steak
stake?
Accepting funding from sponsors responsible for pollution & publishing environmental toxicology studies that disfavor those sponsors was pretty common at the university medical office where I worked.
And this is yet another reason why we need independent science funding, kids
Independent of whom/what?
Science has been canceled until 2028
Found the American.
And this kind of shit unfortunately is fuel for anti-vaxxers and conspiracy types. It’s not just misinformation on social media that we have to thank for people’s mistrust, it’s also the scientists that downplayed how bad sugar is or who turned a blind eye to what cigarettes do in the interests of money.
“I just take scientists out and give them a bunch of funding for their research, and they always give me the results I want. Now of course they could always say no, but they won’t because of the implication. You know, that if they produced results that disagreed with me, that I would refuse to fund future studies. Of course I would never do that, but they don’t know that. So they give positive results for me. You know, because of the implication.”
It’s this comment that made me realize that Dennis is the human embodiment of our capitalistic system
Ain’t that a surprise. Studies on the effects sugary drinks have on your health backed by Coca Cola are also funny
I’m reminded of the scientist paid for by big tobacco in Thank You for Smoking…
